Anonymous ID: dff6b2 Feb. 16, 2019, 2:37 p.m. No.5211246   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>5210516

Thought about that too, and because of what Q already posted tend to agree with >>5210874

It's also the "easiest" way out (in terms of security and what's called "plausible deniability"). No matter what, if "we" win nothing and no one will be the same โ€“ that's what I hope at least.

Count me in already for having changed for this last year and 4 months. And this way or the other, I wouldn't mind meeting Q team at the "victory party" (if there ever is one). Kek!

Anonymous ID: dff6b2 Feb. 17, 2019, 7:17 a.m. No.5222911   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0524

It was a long night yesterday for Q team. Been since 05/13 (also a Sunday) last year that we got 9 posts b/w midnight & 6 during nightshift.

So here's the updated blanks & tweets as of this morning.

Anonymous ID: dff6b2 Feb. 18, 2019, 3:18 p.m. No.5251240   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>5247568

58 occurrences of BIG with the latest update, incl BIGGER etc. 43 when searching for the exact word.

 

Here's the updated blanks. Simple clock from above still valid, so only the "expert" one & the tweets.

Anonymous ID: dff6b2 Feb. 21, 2019, 1:07 p.m. No.5309269   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>5307707

Seen it too, and agree that there's quite some anons out there with rather "awkward" social skills and/or discernment skills (as the other anon stated are necessary).

Also noted the amount of (not sure if all of them) anons jumping on it, which could have easily lead to just another "the clock is shills' work" slide.

 

Sorry, Q, for that reason at least I, for one, keep it here, and have long given up arguing with stubborn "know-it-all 'conspiracy'" people w/o full availability of provable facts โ€ฆ.

Anonymous ID: dff6b2 Feb. 24, 2019, 1:14 p.m. No.5365078   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>2197

>>5364523

Great find, and a nice video too. Thanks so much!

There was this post (pic) made in Bread #2026, titled "Think clock. Wind the clock w/ all markers", where an anon posted almost the same. Was able to find it so fast, 'cause "wind the shit out of it" sounded funnily suspicious to me back then already.

 

Will add it as an option, and see how to do it. For now, I can't assume the "spread" (i.e. angle) is identical all the time (11 markers or mins in your case left & right of the mirror line) โ€“ so it would need additional user input as to the desired angle. But I'll find a way.

Great find!

Anonymous ID: dff6b2 Feb. 27, 2019, 5:29 p.m. No.5425386   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1466

Was afk for a couple of days, catching up on bread.

Here are the latest updates for blanks & tweets. Had to add an extra step to the process, removing all posts without trip but (trip-verified) posterID.

Saw all the main "accumulator" sites went right along, and would have assumed we're "confined" enough that it wouldn't matter much to include them nonetheless since it's valid data acc. to our standards.

Have removed them from the "public" version for now โ€“ please let me know if you'd like them included.

Privately, I'll certainly be using the entire available data. The "public version" would also be the one included w/ QClockView.

>>5364523

 

>>5383768

Sorry to read that. Hope things are improving already, and nothing went too bad. All the Best Wishes!

Anonymous ID: dff6b2 Feb. 28, 2019, 5:29 p.m. No.5440907   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1309

>>5364523

>>5403514

>>5403662

For those playing with the "mirrored mirror" lines (I called it dual mirror): There is an option in the "Markings" menu section to have it drawn into QClockView.

User will be asked to specify the parameters for the desired "mirrored mirror" as shown in the pic, and press "Ok".

When marking rays like this and listing "All Posts Marked", then also the posts highlighted along the center "mirror line" will be listed.

Not sure if implemented as it is now, was what you guys thought about when suggesting it โ€“ let me know in case something is not right.

Anonymous ID: dff6b2 Feb. 28, 2019, 6:07 p.m. No.5441417   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>2088

>>5441309

If you want this, then (for today) switch the "Distance b/w Limbs & Center" back to 7 from its default value of 9. That should do what you're looking for.

From the two examples above, I didn't see this "hard" constraint of [35]-[05] being a fixed axis in all of this.

Anonymous ID: dff6b2 Feb. 28, 2019, 7:02 p.m. No.5442197   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>5442088

No reason to apologize, I tried to do it as flexible as possible. Can easily restrict what it's now to a fixed (1:7) mirror. Then what's shown in this pic

>>5365078

won't be possible anymore (i.e. choosing what marker the limbs center around), and thus achieving the effect of being able to "wind the shit out of it".

I assumed it could be more than just another 5:5 mirror at the 1:7 positionโ€ฆ

Anonymous ID: dff6b2 March 1, 2019, 11:15 a.m. No.5450788   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1538

Here's an early update on tweets & blanks after Q's post during lunch break.

As a side note: It might be an interesting detail that 02/26 in 2018 was at the [21] marker. This was the day with the [-21] countdown announcement in 2019.

"Timestamps important. Countdown? Markers."

 

Trivially, if reversing dates around the clock for 2019 only (!), and w/ 02/26 at [21], 03/19 would be at [00] position.

I'm not assuming that this is the case โ€“ too little data to support it sufficiently โ€“ but might be something to look into or keep in mind.